Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 185285

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

- versus - CARPIO MORALES,*
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.
PAUL ALIPIO,
Accused-Appellant. Promulgated:
October 5, 2009

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

The Case

On appeal is the June 10, 2008 Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02354 that affirmed the April 21, 2006 Decision [2] in
Criminal Case No. 01-427 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65 in
Sorsogon City. The RTC found accused-appellant Paul Alipio guilty of rape and
imposed upon him the penalty ofreclusion perpetua.

The Facts
 An Information filed with the RTC charged Paul with one count of rape
allegedly committed as follows:

That sometime in the month of June, 2000 at Sitio Liman,

Barangay San Francisco, Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force, threats and intimidation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have sexual
intercourse with one [AAA],[3] a mentally retarded woman against her
will and without her consent, to her damage and prejudice.

Contrary to law.[4]

Arraigned on May 13, 2002 with the assistance of his counsel de officio,
Paul entered a plea of not guilty.

During the pre-trial conference, the defense admitted Pauls identity and of
his being a resident of Sitio Liman, San Francisco, Bulan, Sorsogon sometime in
2000.

In the ensuing trial, the prosecution offered in evidence the oral testimonies
of the private complainant, AAA, BBB, her mother, and Dr. Imelda Escuadra,
among others.

For its part, the defense presented in evidence the testimonies of Norma de
Leon, Dr. Chona C. Belmonte, Saul Alipio, and Jose Genagaling.

The Prosecutions Version of Facts

AAA is a 41-year old mentally retarded woman whom Marilou Gipit Alipio
often hired to watch over her children whenever the latter is out of her house. AAA
stopped schooling after finishing Grade VI in a local public school. Marilou is
Pauls sister.

Sometime in June 2000, Marilou sent AAA to Sitio Liman, San Francisco,
Bulan, Sorsogon to borrow money from Marilous father, Saul. At the copra kiln
in Sitio Laman near his house, Saul told AAA that he would give the necessary
amount to Marilou directly.

While about to head for home, AAA heard Paul calling her from his house.
Suddenly, Paul held her hand, pushed her inside and, while covering AAAs mouth,
brought her to his bedroom. He then removed her shorts and panty and likewise,
undressed himself. Paul then went on top of her, kissed her, and fondled her
breasts. Eventually, he entered her, first using his finger, then his penis. Before
finally letting the crying AAA go, however, Paul threatened her with death should
she disclose to anybody what had just happened between them.

Several months later, BBB, AAAs mother, noticed that the latter had missed
her monthly period. With some coaxing, AAA told her mother what Paul had done
to her. Thereupon, AAAs mother went to see Marilou and her father to apprise
them about AAAs pregnancy. The Alipios promised financial help, albeit Paul
would later disown responsibility for AAAs condition. When brought to a doctor
for medical examination, AAA was found to be seven (7) months pregnant. AAA
eventually gave birth to a baby girl.

Psychiatric evaluation done by Dr. Escuadra revealed that AAA, although 42

years old at that time, had the mental capacity and disposition of a nine or 10 year-
old child. Her intelligence quotient (I.Q.) of 60 was way below the average I.Q. of
90, clearly indicating a mental retardation case. When cross-examined, Dr.
Escuadra described AAA as possessing a certain level of comprehension of
incidents based on experience which she is capable of relaying and relating to. To
the doctor, AAA was very well qualified to be a witness provided the questions are
asked in a simple manner.[5]

Version of the Defense

The testimonies of the four (4) witnesses the defense presented were
intended to establish Pauls innocence of the crime charged and that he himself was
a psychiatric case.
 Norma de Leon, a laundrywoman employed by Marilou and who
acknowledged seeing AAA often in Marilous house, testified being in Liman to get
bamboos at the time the alleged rape incident happened. At around 12 noon of that
day, while she and Paul were eating lunch at the kiosk, AAA arrived. After they
had finished eating, she saw AAA trying to drag Paul inside his house, but the
latter pushed AAA towards the wooden portion of the kiosk. Paul then left for
Polot, leaving AAA behind.

Dr. Chona C. Belmonte, a psychiatrist at the Bicol Medical Center,

conducted a psychiatric examination on Paul. Her diagnosis: Paul was suffering
from schizoaffective disorder, a temporary and reversible psychiatric condition
affecting basically an individuals thinking, perception, and emotion. In Pauls case,
this psychiatric disorder manifested itself after his brothers death in 1987, and was
aggravated when a sister committed suicide in 1990.

When recalled to the witness stand after conducting a follow-up

examination, Dr. Belmonte stated that Paul was in a much better condition and was
fit to stand trial, being free from any perceptual disturbances and acute psychotic
signs and symptoms. To Dr. Belmonte, Paul could give positive answers and was
aware of the consequences, if found guilty.

Saul Alipio, Pauls father, expressed the belief that Paul could not have
committed the crime of which he was accused. At the time the alleged molestation
transpired, Paul was, according to Saul, at the farm gathering coconuts.
Jose Genagaling, a coconut farmer and Sauls compadre, testified that
sometime in June 2000, or on the day the rape incident occurred, he was
processing copra at the copra kiln of Saul. With him at the copra kiln at that time
was Paul. Nothing unusual happened in Sauls house and copra kiln on that day.

Ruling of the Trial Court

After trial, the RTC convicted Paul of rape penalized under paragraph 1(a)
and (d), Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). [6] The dispositive portion
of the decision reads:
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused PAUL ALIPIOs
GUILT having been established beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA,
to indemnify the victim AAA in the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and another [P50,000.00] as moral damages, and to pay the
costs.

The preventive imprisonment already served by the accused shall

be credited in the service of his sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.

SO ORDERED.[7]

Paul filed a notice of appeal and the records of the case were transmitted to
the CA.

Ruling of the Appellate Court

By decision of June 10, 2008, the CA denied Pauls appeal and affirmed the
RTCs judgment.

Hence, we have this appeal.

In response to the Courts Resolution for the submission of supplemental

briefs, both accused-appellant and plaintiff-appellee manifested that they are no
longer filing their respective supplemental briefs considering that such briefs
would only contain arguments also raised in their respective appeal briefs filed
before the CA.

It is accused-appellants submission that the RTC and CA gravely erred:

1. x x x in giving credence to the apparently incredible testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses; and

2. x x x in rendering a verdict of conviction despite the fact that the

guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt.[8]
In fine, accused-appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly that of AAA and the adequacy of its evidence.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal is denied for lack of merit.

Testimony of the Victim Is Credible

Accused-appellant maintains that the trial court erred in giving full credence
to and reliance on AAAs inculpatory statements in the witness box, it being his
contention that her account of what purportedly happened reeks of inconsistencies
and does not jibe with the normal flow of things. As asserted, it is quite unnatural
for a woman finding herself in a sexually-charged situation not make an outcry or
use her hands to ward off the advances of a sex fiend. According to him, it is
contrary to human experience too that a person with lustful desire would run after
the intended victim in a place that is obviously not secluded.

Accused-appellant draws attention to the fact that when she testified in

court, AAA stated that accused-appellant ran after her but did not call out to her.
Yet, in her statement before the police, she made it appear that he called out to her.

The Court is not persuaded.

First of all, the Court cannot understand how accused-appellant can talk of
and expect, as a matter of course, a natural reaction from AAA who is
unquestionably mentally retarded, one who does not have a good grasp of
information, and who lacks the capacity to make a mental calculation of events
unfolding before her eyes. AAA can hardly be described as a normal person with
fully developed mental faculties. Hence, it is not fair to judge her according to
what is natural or unnatural for normal persons.

As to accused-appellants assertion that it is contrary to human experience

that a person with lustful design would run after his prey in a place less
than private, suffice it to say that lust does not respect either time or place; [9] that
sexual abuse is committed in the most unlikely places. The evil in man has no
consciencethe beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to
commit rape anywhere, even in places where people congregate such as in parks,
along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are
other occupants.[10]

To be sure, AAAs testimony is not without discrepancies and

inconsistencies, given of course her mental state. It cannot be over-emphasized,
however, that the inconsistencies pointed out by accused-appellant strike this Court
as trivial. Rape is a harrowing experience, the exact details of which are usually
not remembered.Inconsistencies, even if they do exist, tend to bolster, rather than
weaken, the credibility of the witness, for they show that the testimony was not
contrived or rehearsed.[11]Trivial inconsistencies, like the matter of whether or not
accused-appellant called out on AAA before he forcibly grabbed her hands, do not,
to borrow from People v. Cristobal, rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of
the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of
scheming.[12]

Minor inconsistencies in testimonies should be disregarded. This rule

becomes all the more applicable when the witness is mentally ill. The Court said as
much in People v. Atuel:

Complainant was mentally ill at the time of the incident, and

consequently could not be expected to remember in precise detail all that
actually happened to her. Her severe traumatic experience was too much
for her unstable mental faculties Her testimony as to what had happened
certainly cannot constitute gospel truth We have said that a rape victim is
not and cannot be expected to keep an accurate account of her traumatic
experience. And the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some
inconsistencies in her testimony. On the contrary, it is a recognized
axiom in rape cases that inconsistencies in the victims testimony do not
detract from the vital fact that, in truth, she had been abused. Testimonial
discrepancies could have been caused by the natural fickleness of the
memory, which variances tend to strengthen rather than weaken
credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[13]
 Verily, accused-appellant cannot exculpate himself by riding on the alleged
inconsistencies in AAAs testimonies. Errorless accounts of what had transpired
cannot be expected especially when a witness is recounting specifics of an
agonizing experience. To be sure, the trial court had not made much, as it should
not have, of what accused-appellant considered inconsistencies in AAAs account
of what happened immediately before and during her ordeal.

The unyielding rule has been that the trial courts evaluation of the credibility
of witnesses and their testimonies is deserving of the highest respect because of its
unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude under grilling examination.[14] Such assessment binds the
Court except when the assessment was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight
and substance which could have affected the results of the case. [15] None of these
exceptions exists in this case.

In fact, the trial court found AAAs testimony clear, convincing, and credible.
The trial court wrote:
The very CANDID, STRAIGHTFORWARD, and CONSISTENT
testimony of the RAPE victim, [AAA], narrates with definiteness that
she was sexually abused by accused, Paul Alipio @ Ayona, in the latters
house in Sitio Liman, Bgy. San Francisco, Bulan, Sorsogon, sometime in
June of 2000; when she was sent by the accuseds sister Marilou Gipit
Alipio to borrow money from their father, Saul Alipio. A comparative
analysis of the declarations given by the victim before the police (See:
Sworn Statement, Exhibit D, p. 10/Rollo); as well as, the declarations
she made in open court in the course of the trial (TSN, June 23, 2003,
pp. 3 to 33); REVEAL SUBSTANTIAL similarities and
CONSISTENCY of her claim.[16] x x x

AAAs mental condition, to stress, does not prevent her from being a
competent and credible witness. As has been held, a mental retardate is not
disqualified from being a witness; the retardates mental condition does not, on that
ground alone, vitiate his or her credibility.[17] If the mental retardates testimony is
coherent, it is admissible in court.[18] Evidently, the trial court had ascertained the
veracity and credibility of AAAs testimony sufficient to support a finding of
conviction, thus:
 To the mind of the court, the testimony alone of the retarded
victim will SUFFICE to carry solely for the prosecution the burden of
proof required by the law and rules. The victim, [AAA], was
CONSISTENT in all the declarations she executed before the police
(Sworn Statement), and the testimony she gave before this court during
the trial that she was RAPED by accused PAUL ALIPIO @ AYONA in
their house in Sitio Liman, Bgy. San Francisco, Bulan, Sorsogon, when
she was sent by the sister of the accused (Marilou Gipit) to borrow
money from their father, Saul Alipio. Notwithstanding the fact, that the
victim failed to give the approximate date of the rape incident when
asked by the prosecutor during the direct-examination, such an omission
or mental lapse on her part was supplemented by the testimonies of her
mother, [BBB], and another prosecution witness, Dr. Ma. Belen Gordola.
The latter testified, that at the time of the examination of the patient
victim, she was able to arrive at the conclusion that the uterus was seven
months old because of the palpation she did by measuring the patients
abdomen and palpating the fetus inside. Considering that the fetus was
seven (7) months old at the time of her examination, the possible date of
conception would be in the month of May or in the FIRST WEEK OF
JUNE or in the last week of April. Moreover, even the substance of the
testimonies of defense witnesses x x x attest to the fact that it was in the
month of June, 2000 when they saw the victim [AAA] [come] to Sitio
Liman, bringing the vale sheet from the daughter of Saul Alipio named
Marilou Gipit who sent her for an errand. It must be emphasized
likewise, that by reason of her mental abnormality the victim is oriented
to place and person BUT NOT TO DATE (Exhibit C-1/p. 2 Psychiatric
Evaluation).[19]

To reiterate, the issue of credibility is a matter best addressed by the trial

court that has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while
testifying. Great weight and even finality must be accorded to factual findings of
the trial court especially its assessments of witnesses and their credibility, except
when there is a clear showing of arbitrariness or oversight of some facts or
circumstances of substance.[20] The Court finds no reason to overturn the findings
of the trial court.
 Likewise, it is a well-entrenched jurisprudence that a medical examination of
the victim is not indispensable to the successful prosecution for rape inasmuch as
her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the perpetrator of the crime.
[21]
Thus, accused-appellants insistence that there should have been a medical
examination and a medical certificate showing the condition of AAAs hymen to
corroborate her testimony is clearly untenable. It bears stressing that a broken
hymen is not an essential element of the crime of rape. [22] And as aptly observed by
the Office of the Solicitor General, AAA was already pregnant when BBB found
out about the rape and that the former had already given birth when she testified,
making a hymeneal examination a worthless exercise.[23]

At this juncture, it bears to state that sexual intercourse with a woman who is
a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape.[24] As such, the question of whether
the circumstances of force or intimidation are absent is of no moment to accused-
appellants liability for rape, albeit the trial court held that he employed force and
intimidation on the feebleminded AAA.

Exempting Circumstance of Insanity Is Absent

In a bid to escape from criminal liability, accused-appellant invokes insanity.

He contends that the psychiatrist who examined him consistently testified that
there was a high possibility that he was suffering from schizoaffective disorder
when the alleged rape incident happened.

We are not convinced.

The moral and legal presumption is always in favor of soundness of mind;

that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person. [25] It is
improper to assume the contrary.[26] This presumption, however, may be overcome
by evidence of insanity, which, under Art. 12(1) of the RPC, exempts a person
from criminal liability.

In People v. Formigones,[27] the Court has established a more stringent

standard for insanity to be an exempting circumstance. There, it was held that, for
insanity to be appreciated in favor of the accused, there must be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of
reason or there is a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation
of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
[28]

The evidence offered by the defense in this case miserably failed to establish
clearly and convincingly the presence of the stringent criterion for insanity. On the
contrary, the evidence tended to show, albeit impliedly, that accused-appellant was
not deprived of reason at all and can still distinguish right from wrong when, after
satisfying his lust, he threatened AAA not to tell anybody about what he had done;
otherwise, she would be killed. This single episode irresistibly implies, for one,
that accused-appellant knew what he was doing, that it was wrong, and wanted to
keep it a secret. And for another, it indicated that the crime was committed during
one of accused-appellants lucid intervals. In this regard, no less than his father
admitted in open court that there were times when his son was in his proper senses.
[29]

Given the above perspective, the trial court correctly downplayed accused-
appellants plea of insanity. The Court cites with approval the following excerpts
from the RTCs decision:

Dr. Belmonte, the psychiatrist who evaluated the mental condition

of the accused testified x x x that the accused was given psychological
testing to fully assess his mental condition, and he was found to have an
average mental condition. In the intelligent quotient test accused has an
average mental function while in the projective test there were several
indicators noted, since at the time of the testing accused showed a lot of
immaturity, stubbornness and irritability. That it would be difficult for
them to employ a mechanism that would prevent selective responses on
the part of the accused. They just observed the patient and that is also the
reason why they give psychological testing, because in that way they can
determine whether the subject is in conflict with his personality. That
during those times the accused had his sessions with the psychologist
and some doctors accused was barely consistent and their evaluation
shows consistent result. Schizoaffective disorder is always precipitated
by certain traumatic experience. That there is really a need for them to
gather information to know whether the accused was already afflicted
with that mental disorder sometime in 1987 or 2000. That the
 schizoaffective disorder of Paul Alipio is only temporary in character
hence, it can be treated. The duration of the treatment would depend on
the progress of the patient.

The doctor further stated during the clarificatory questioning

propounded by the Court, that there is a high possibility that sometime in
2001 when the alleged rape incident took place implicating the accused
as the rapist, accused was not in his normal mental condition. During
that time this schizoaffective disorder was already in effect. THAT SHE
HAS NO CATEGORICAL FINDINGS YET INSOFAR AS THE SENSE
OF DISCERNMENT OF THE ACCUSED BETWEEN RIGHT AND
WRONG IS CONCERNED. x x x

Prescinding from the foregoing testimony of the doctor, it is clear

therefore that the mental disorder of accused Paul Alipio is only
temporary in character and can be treated. Moreover, although the
probability is high that in year 2000 when the rape incident took place
accused was already suffering from schizoaffective disorder, said doctor
has not come up with any categorical findings yet relative to the sense of
discernment of the accused when it comes to what is RIGHT and what is
WRONG.[30]

With the view we take of this case, we find the prosecution to have
discharged its burden of proving the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. And needless to stress, guilt beyond reasonable doubt only denotes moral
certainty, not absolute certainty. Moral certainty is that degree of proof which, to an
unprejudiced mind, produces conviction.[31]

The crime committed being in the nature of simple rape, the award by the
trial court, as affirmed by the CA, of PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity ex delicto for
the victim and the same amount as moral damages is in line with prevailing case
law and is accordingly affirmed. Accused-appellant must, however, pay AAA PhP
30,000 by way of exemplary damages as a measure to deter other individuals with
aberrant sexual tendencies pursuant to current jurisprudence.[32]
 WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 02354 finding accused-appellant Paul Alipio guilty of the crime charged
isAFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay
AAA exemplary damages in the amount of PhP 30,000.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.